Profession NL HE example
 

On page 135 in the REM section of PNL the example of KT on a K 4 4 board is called a way ahead/ way behind scenario which is used as justification to check behind on the flop and call a potential bluffer on the turn and river. The authors however don't mention the fact that any weaker king has ~10.5 outs against you with 15 outs to chop and 3 outs to win (k2 and k3 only have chop outs).

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

The suckout odds don't matter much because they're never folding their TP anyway (ie. this is a showdown hand, not a drawing hand).

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

So you wanna go for some pot control and inducing some bluffs is a bonus. You're not getting called by anything you beat if you start firing hard.

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

[ QUOTE ]
The suckout odds don't matter much because they're never folding their TP anyway (ie. this is a showdown hand, not a drawing hand).

[/ QUOTE ]

?

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

another thing to consider is that (depending on the villain and the action), we can often count out alot of worse kings anyways. Say we open from CO with KTs, and a 25/10 villain calls in the sb - now if he does have a king here, it's usually going to be a better king, since he's probably not playing stuff like K6 pf.

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The suckout odds don't matter much because they're never folding their TP anyway (ie. this is a showdown hand, not a drawing hand).

[/ QUOTE ]

?

[/ QUOTE ]


I think it helps if we get an actual HH, positions, reads/stats, etc.

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

Might be a bit OT, but aren't they limping awfully lot in general in their hand examples in that book?

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

[ QUOTE ]
another thing to consider is that (depending on the villain and the action), we can often count out alot of worse kings anyways. Say we open from CO with KTs, and a 25/10 villain calls in the sb - now if he does have a king here, it's usually going to be a better king, since he's probably not playing stuff like K6 pf.

[/ QUOTE ]

The opponents in the example are a loose limper and the BB.

Nielso-
its not so much that they will fold their TP, its trying to extract value from it when you are ahead. Both bigger and smaller kings are likely to put in bets on the turn given that the flop is checked around, but smaller kings less likely to put in bets on the flop (as they are more likely to check).

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

For those who don't have the book-

the example is a 1-2$ game with 200 Effective stacks. Very loose player limps in Middle position and you limp with KhTh on the button. sb folds, BB checks (bb likes to bluff and pays off with mediocre hands) . Flop is K 4 4r and the flop is checked to you.

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
another thing to consider is that (depending on the villain and the action), we can often count out alot of worse kings anyways. Say we open from CO with KTs, and a 25/10 villain calls in the sb - now if he does have a king here, it's usually going to be a better king, since he's probably not playing stuff like K6 pf.

[/ QUOTE ]

The opponents in the example are a loose limper and the BB.

Nielso-
its not so much that they will fold their TP, its trying to extract value from it when you are ahead. Both bigger and smaller kings are likely to put in bets on the turn given that the flop is checked around, but smaller kings less likely to put in bets on the flop (as they are more likely to check).

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't have the book, I commented on the holdings/ranges and the board. If you can turn it into a HH that would help.

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

[ QUOTE ]
For those who don't have the book-

the example is a 1-2$ game with 200 Effective stacks. Very loose player limps in Middle position and you limp with KhTh on the button. sb folds, BB checks (bb likes to bluff and pays off with mediocre hands) . Flop is K 4 4r and the flop is checked to you.

[/ QUOTE ]


omg, raise preflop.

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

whoa why are we overlimping KTs there? ugh.

Looks like I'll have to give this book a read.

anyways, I usually check behind the flop there in the described scenario. IMO the times we induce a bluff or get paid by a 2-outer that would have folded to a flop lead, makes up for the times that he has a worse king and sucks out.

we want our villain to make mistakes, and this is a case where I think checking blows the doors wide open for him, whereas betting generally allows him to play correctly.

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

[ QUOTE ]
whoa why are we overlimping KTs there? ugh.

Looks like I'll have to give this book a read.

[/ QUOTE ]


Does not compute.

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
whoa why are we overlimping KTs there? ugh.

Looks like I'll have to give this book a read.

[/ QUOTE ]


Does not compute.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol i was like wtf i raise there like 80% - and that low because in live games here there's a lot of limp-reraising. this is the first quote that got me jumping to grab the book.


anyway fwiw here's the setup:

p. 135 "The big blind likes to bluff and also pays off with mediocre hands. That's one reason you limped preflop."

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

[ QUOTE ]
anyway fwiw here's the setup:

p. 135 "The big blind likes to bluff and also pays off with mediocre hands. That's one reason you limped preflop."

[/ QUOTE ]


That's actually a reason to raise and let him call from the blinds oop with his dominated hand and your hand that can play well as a draw also, in position.

There's really no reason to limp this and let the blinds outflop you with J2o, in a 4-way pot.

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

In addition this is a situation where the BB has a 4 and you think after paying him off ... why the hell didnt i get him out preflop???

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
whoa why are we overlimping KTs there? ugh.

Looks like I'll have to give this book a read.

[/ QUOTE ]


Does not compute.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol i was like wtf i raise there like 80% - and that low because in live games here there's a lot of limp-reraising. this is the first quote that got me jumping to grab the book.


anyway fwiw here's the setup:

p. 135 "The big blind likes to bluff and also pays off with mediocre hands. That's one reason you limped preflop."

[/ QUOTE ]

Matt,
Mostly I was concerned with characterizing it as a WA/WB scenario when the opponents can have a series of hands with 7-10 outs. I'm transitioning from limit and that description wouldn't really jive on this hand in that world. I don't really have any real comments other than it just seems an incorrect (but not wildly so) term to use.

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

[ QUOTE ]
So you wanna go for some pot control and inducing some bluffs is a bonus. You're not getting called by anything you beat if you start firing hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

That quote is pretty much the crux of the example. Obviously there are other ways to play this hand - raising pf clearly being one of them. The point of this hand was just to give an example of using pot control. And actually, I think it exemplifies it well. Sure, opponents have combined x outs and zOMG you're giving them a free card on the flop blah blah blah. Bottom line is that the pot is small, the board is paired, your hand is mediocre, there are zero draws, and you're playing against a habitual bluffer. In this type of no-limit situation, controlling the pot, getting to showdown, and playing such that you let the bluffer do his thing without putting you to a stack decision are all paramountly more important than "protecting your hand." Remember, there are NL newbies that don't understand a lot of those things which some of you take for granted. There are players who just think "Top pair. Bet it baby. Oh crap, I just got raised. Now what?"

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

[ QUOTE ]
Might be a bit OT, but aren't they limping awfully lot in general in their hand examples in that book?

[/ QUOTE ]

not sure how far you are into the book, or if you've finished the whole thing, but a couple comments....

one is that in general I think people's almost religious rejection of limping on this forum is fairly silly, two is that we purposely included limping in a few hand examples early on in the book while making separate non-pf-related points.....but even having said that, if you look at the end of the book ("Planning in Practice") where we show 15 hand examples to "put together" everything we taught in Volume One, the hero either raises, reraises, or calls a raise in 14 out of the 15 hands. The only hand which we limp for the actual sake of limping is the final hand in which we have AJ UTG in an eight-handed game. And even in that hand, I believe we mention the possibility of raising, but explain that limping is better based purely on the current game conditions.


PS - thanks a lot for the comments guys...

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

Spot on, you got me. I haven't finished the book, i've only read the start.

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

As an aside,

I know you all think limping is evil, but try reading the book with an open mind. Sure you all are pretty good, make good money, but being open to new ideas can help you in the long run,

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

[ QUOTE ]
As an aside,

I know you all think limping is evil, but try reading the book with an open mind. Sure you all are pretty good, make good money, but being open to new ideas can help you in the long run,

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean to derail this thread, but I'll say something short about limping. For example. limping or raising 33 UTG has very little difference in EV IMO, but the reason we raise is because there are some hands that are ++EV to raise (big pairs, AK) so that its better to sacrifice maybe a bit of EV by raising close decisions so that we can play more so in a non-exploitable fashion.

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As an aside,

I know you all think limping is evil, but try reading the book with an open mind. Sure you all are pretty good, make good money, but being open to new ideas can help you in the long run,

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean to derail this thread, but I'll say something short about limping. For example. limping or raising 33 UTG has very little difference in EV IMO, but the reason we raise is because there are some hands that are ++EV to raise (big pairs, AK) so that its better to sacrifice maybe a bit of EV by raising close decisions so that we can play more so in a non-exploitable fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is basically the same reason why people adhere to 4+x like super glue. By doing the same thing every time no matter what the hand or position or table status, nobody can estimate your range based on your PFR size.

Of course it would be nice if we had the freedom to limp or raise the perfect amount for every situation to accomplish whatever our goals are. That would be the most +EV scenario. It may even be true that 4+x isn't ideal for the majority of situations, and if that is so then we may be giving up too much for the same of not being exploitable. Seems to me that the logical solution to this is to randomize your play somewhat, rather than giving up your freedom to select the perfect line.

Then again, if you limp you must have small genitals. Limping is weak.

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

Hey I know that guy! Grunch, glad to see you are posting again.

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

My impression is that given current conditions in online 6max SSNL (at least at pokerstars and full tilt) never limping preflop is probably optimal. People assume this means that never limping preflop under any circumstances is optimal. But there are plenty of full-ring games, especially full-ring live games, where limping a lot is definitely hugely profitable. Playing live 1/2 or 2/5 NL at Foxwoods or the Borgata, for example, it's definitely +EV at many tables to play around 70/15. The 15 is your "normal" 15, but you just limp almost everything else. I know because I've done it. So though I don't have the book yet, seems to make sense to approach it with an open mind.

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hey I know that guy! Grunch, glad to see you are posting again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thx, I've been posting in other forums actually.

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

sorry for the novice question, but whats 4+x?

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

[ QUOTE ]
sorry for the novice question, but whats 4+x?

[/ QUOTE ]

4 big blinds + 1 for each limper

Re: Profession NL HE example
 

[ QUOTE ]
sorry for the novice question, but whats 4+x?

[/ QUOTE ]

Refers to the size of a PFR. 4 BB + 1 more BB for every limper. So if you are first to enter, pfr 4 BB. If there are 2 limpers then you, PFR 6 BB.